GALENA MINING AND WATER QUALITY OF AMATA ... - IJSER

International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 11, Issue 6, June-2020 245 ISSN 2229-5518

IJSER © 2020

http://www.ijser.org

Galena Mining And Water Quality Of Amata, Southeastern Nigeria

ONUGHA, AUGUSTINE CHIMEEBERE

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

IGNATIUS AJURU UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

PORT HARCOURT, RIVERS STATE NIGERIA

Corresponding Email: [email protected]; Phone No: +2347032533729

ABSTRACT The study investigated galena mining and water quality of Amata community in Ishiagu clan of Ivo Local

Government Area, Ebonyi State southeastern Nigeria. The study adopted the completely randomized block

design (CRBD) due to the similarity of the experimental points (i.e. sampling frames) where the water

samples (i.e. surface and groundwater) are taken. Instruments like: multiparameter water quality meter,

water analyzer, Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (AAS), one liter plastic containers and GPS were used to

collect, determine and analyze chemically if galena mining in any way impacts on the water quality in

Amata community. The results revealed relatively low concentrations of temperature, alkalinity, TDS, EC,

Ca, Mg3, SO4, and Cl far below the WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limits for declaring water suitable for

consumption. However, the pH ranging from 4.52–6.59, salinity of above 0.1% permissible limit, turbidity

above 5.00mg/l, including DO and K+ of above 5.00 mg/l, and PO43 levels ranging from 13.79-41.23 far

above the 10.00 mg/l WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limit, makes the waters in Amata community

moderately acidic, salty, muddy, unclean, contaminated and unfit for human consumption, certain plant

growth, and sustaining some aquatic organisms. The study suggested the treatment of effluents prior to their

discharge land and water bodies in order to forestall the contamination of the water quality of Amata.

Keywords: Galena, mining, water quality, Amata, southeastern, Nigeria

Introduction

The alteration, interference or demystification of natural or nature resources and systems

especially through irrational, senseless or unsustainable extraction of solid minerals deposited in

space, could trigger issues like degradation of the environment (i.e. stratosphere, land and aquatic)

quality. In specific locations across the community (like Amata), district (like Ishiagu), province

(like Ivo), state (like Ebonyi), region (like southeast), country (like Nigeria), and globe certain

economically important mineral like galena deposits that is available underneath and unearthed or

mined using diverse techniques, processes, technology, strategies, and materials comes with its

attendant cost, effluents or wastes, influences, and impacts (social, health, pollution, etc.). These

impacts could accentuate hazards, diseases and infections as enunciated by Chellan and Sadler

IJSER

http://www.ijser.org/

mailto:[email protected]


IJSER © 2020


(2015); Hajeb, Sloth, Shakibazadeh, Mahyudin and Afsah-Hejri (2014) to potentially cause harm

to humans, animals, and plants in that environment.

Galena is a lead sulfide mineral with a chemical composition of PbS (i.e. an equal number

of lead and sulfide ions). Galena is a jealous and easily identified mineral that comes with its own

water, any stain changes its distinct silver colour. It is also a bright metallic luster mineral found

in igneous and metamorphic rocks in medium- to low-temperature hydrothermal veins, while in

sedimentary rocks it occurs as veins, breccia cements, and isolated grains (Lead Fact Sheet, 2016).

Similarly, if rocks containing galena are exposed to heat, then lead is recovered from under the

ashes when the fire goes out. Galena is one mineral that can easily melt or smelt under low-

temperature, leading to the liberation of byproducts like lead ore, zinc ore, and silver ore (Young,

Taylor & Anderson, 2008). Specifically, galena is regularly mined for its 1–2% silver content,

which is a byproduct with revenue that far outweighs that derived from lead and zinc ore (Obarezi

& Nwosu, 2013). Hence, some mines could generate more income from the silver content of their

galena more than that from the lead and zinc content.

Olubambi, Ndlovu, Potgieter and Borode (2008) states that galena is a major mineral of

the zinc-lead mines (i.e. mining sites) in Ishiagu, Ivo province (i.e. local government area). This

makes the mineral to have a high specific gravity (7.4 to 7.6) that is instantly noticed when picking

up even small pieces. Furthermore, the silver ore within the galena cause disruptions like: changing

the crystal structure to have curved appearance, staining the silver colour to dull gray, and also its

content of minor quantities of antimony, arsenic, bismuth, cadmium, copper, and zinc, which

sometimes determines the variability of the prospecting, mining or extraction of this mineral

(Obarezi & Nwosu, 2013). Also, the few percent silver contained in the galena is 364 times more

valuable than an equal weight of lead. This accounts for the reason underlying mining companies

(like Palladium Mining Limited), and artisanal miners (like artisans, children, youth, adults, etc.)

interest and excitement in methodologically or operationally moving to an area or locality (like

Amata community) with deposits of the argentiferous galena (i.e. galena with silver content).

Succinctly, the galena mine establishment in Amata is about 45m or 130ft deep gotten from

a vein (i.e. an igneous outcrop). In addition, the mining of galena at Amata was hitherto perceived

to provide inhabitants with income outweighing that from farming, this explains the proliferation

of organized and artisan mining sites considered as a lucrative venture around this vicinity.

Deductively, specific stages, activities, method (like open pit, opencast, underground, etc.), and

IJSER


https://geology.com/rocks/igneous-rocks.shtml

https://geology.com/rocks/metamorphic-rocks.shtml

https://geology.com/rocks/

https://geology.com/rocks/sedimentary-rocks.shtml

https://geology.com/rocks/breccia.shtml

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc


IJSER © 2020


exploration technique (like drilling rig) adopted or utilized during the extraction of the galena

results in the production of majorly lead (Pb), moderately zinc (Zn), and minor silver (Ag). These

products as heavy metals contains toxins, contaminants or impurities that endangers the water

quality (surface and underground) thereby, making it unsafe for drinking and industrial usage

including upsetting the area’s hydrology (Ishaya, Mamman & Abubakar, 2018).

The stages (i.e. life cycle and closure) in galena mining can affect the quality of water

resources (both surface and groundwater). Regrettably, the rising business and artisanal miners in

Africa has resulted in insightful and irreversible cycle of environmental destruction that continues

to worsen the issue of water quality pollution (Oelofse & Turton, 2008). These hazardous issues

must be addressed within the context of the instituted environmental regulations operational within

the jurisdiction of the area (Oden, 2012). In view of this, Nuwer (2015) stated that attempts at

limiting the devastation to the aquatic environment would help to sustain the existence and

productivity of the inherent biodiversity and ecosystem. Hence, value for water quality underlies

properly assessing and curbing the associated hazards encountered in the process of mining galena.

Odika, Anike, Onwuemesi, Odika and Ejeckam (2020) assert that embarking on rigorous

scrutiny of the stages, activities, methods, processes and techniques adopted in galena mining is

extremely important. Otherwise, the ensuing jettisoning of proper environmental regulations and

enforcement for the conduct of mining activities intensifies unethical practices, alongside chemical

contamination of water and soil systems leading to disease prevalence, loss of lives and property

from this profitable venture in mining sites (e. active, abandoned and concluded). Notwithstanding,

the extent of regulations instituted during interactions (like mining activities) on the surface or

physical environment, it inevitably produces effluents that would pollute underground systems and

vice versa. In view of this, Dami, Ayuba and Amukali (2013) stated that engaging in standardized

treatment prior to the discharge of effluents from mining sites even into water bodies is a proficient

risk assessment that could forestall the far-reaching effects of toxic chemicals derivable ground

water pollution due to mining activities. This is the crux of the matter articulated in this study.

Statement of the Problem

The mining of solid minerals (like galena) which date back to the1960s (NGSA, 2010),

gives rise to chemicals like lead, zinc, and silver with effluents or discharges likely to affect

environmental resources especially underground and river water which represent the main source

of domestic, commercial, and industrial water for both rural and urban population. Thus, certain

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


anthropogenic activities (like mining of lead, etc.) engaged in order to stimulate the economy,

provide employment, and industrialized the society generates residues, effluents (like wastewater),

and other byproducts with elements that increases the level of pollution, hazards or impurities. For

instance, Ishaya et al. (2018) stated that certain harmful impurities are released into the

environment whilst processing a metal like lead into finished products such as lead-acid batteries

used as standby power supplies for computer networks, communication facilities, and other critical

systems used in energy storage systems associated with power generation and hybrid vehicles.

Furthermore, inappropriate planning and disregard for regulations erupts substantial level

of environmental degradation especially on the water quality around galena mining sites (like

Amata community). Equally, the ensuing devastating impacts of heavy metals on humans and the

water quality has overtime triggered anxieties on the health and safety of humans who supposedly

have benefited socially, economically, and developmentally from the extraction of a solid mineral

like galena. This, raises fears on the adequacy of the existing surface and groundwater supplies to

remain suitable for human use and biodiversity sustenance in this area, thereby culminating to the

contemplation of measures to tackle the imminent infection or poison from drinking such water.

However, the inability to adopt modern, viable and functional mining regulations has led

to the rise of professional mining firms, and artisans or unprofessional miners (like children, youth,

women or unaccredited persons/group) mining and discharging their effluents indiscriminately

without prior standard treatment processes. This has increased the pollution of the water and other

environmental resources prompting the consideration of a crude and impracticable approach like

the cessation of mining. Previous studies focused largely on the trace metal status of streams

receiving acid mine drainage (Aroh, Ubong, Eze & Abam, 2006), characterization of toxicity

distribution of selected heavy metals in stream sediments (Ameh, Idakwo, Ameh & Lekdukum,

2017), and effects of barite mining on water quality (Ishaya et al., 2018). This prompted an

investigation on galena mining and water quality of Amata, southeastern Nigeria.

The Study Area

The study was conducted in Amata community in Ishiagu district in Ivo Local Government Area

(LGA) of Ebonyi State (i.e. southeast geopolitical zone), Nigeria. Amata lies between latitudes

5.56–6.12ºN and longitudes 7.33–7.37ºE. According to Odika et al. (2020), normal temperature in

this area ranges from 20o to 38oC, and from 16o to 28oC during the dry and rainy seasons

respectively. The relief shows visible presence of undulating hills and hillocks rising up to 93m

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


above sea level where significant deposits of solid minerals like galena lies. Equally, substantial

part of the Amata galena mining field is operated by Palladium Mining Limited, the site is four (4)

cadastral unit (i.e. 1 km sq.) in a border town between Abia and Enugu States (see Fig. 1).

Figure1: Ishiagu showing Amata Community. Inset Ebonyi State with a red shading showing the

Ivo Local Government Area and the study area.

Source: DHgis International Limited, February, 2020

Furthermore, Amata community is located in the Ishiagu district of Ivo LGA Ebonyi State

southeastern Nigeria, which belongs to the unique Lower Benue Trough with both savannah

vegetation with tall grasses and small trees, and rainforest vegetation zone that makes the

community to traditionally engage in flourishing occupation of farming in annual crops like rice,

cassava, yams and vegetables like pumpkin and spinach (Edeani, 2015), and perennial crops (like

orange, African pea, mango, cashew, etc.). But, mining has now emerged as modern occupation

due to the perceived slightly additional revenue. Also, in terms of climatic condition, there are two

major seasons; the wet season (from March/April to October) and the dry season (from November

to February/March). Odika et al. (2020) states that these seasons arise from the two prevailing

winds at different periods of the year; the dry harmattan wind from the Sahara desert and the

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


marine wind from the Atlantic Ocean. Similarly, the Amata mining site operated by Palladium

Nigeria Limited uses the open pit (i.e. pit-lake) method of about 45m or 130ft deep, which are

abandoned at the close or expiration of galena mining.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The researcher embarked on a reconnaissance survey to the Amata mining sites prior to the

commencement of the actual study for the collection of water samples. In specificity, twelve (12)

water samples (i.e. sampling points/frames) were purposively taken as thus: three (via upstream,

midstream, and downstream) from Ivo river (i.e. stream sediment sample), three pit lakes drains,

five well water, and one wetland around the study area or vicinity. Thereafter, the physio-chemical

parameters of the 12 water samples via: temperature (T), pH, electrical conductivity (EC), salinity,

total dissolved solid (TDS), dissolved oxygen (DO), nitrate (NO3), sulphate (SO4), chloride (Cl),

phosphate (PO43), total alkalinity, turbidity, calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg3), and Potassium (K+)

were considered, explored or analyzed. Thus, the physicochemical quality of the water samples

were determined using the National Agency for Food Drugs Administration and Control

(NAFDAC, 2001), and World Health Organization standardize guidelines for drinking-water

quality (WHO, 2011).

Table 1: Points of water samples collection

S/N Location Time Easting Northing

1 Well Water 4:13pm 9.625103 8.564083

2 Well Water 3:39pm 9.625717 8.569170

3 Well Water 4:11pm 9.627362 8.585765

4 Well Water 5:02pm 9.628538 8.625927

5 Well Water 3:57pm 9.626016 8.654082

6 Wetland Water 4:01pm 9.624473 8.576053

7 Pit-lake Water 3:35pm 9.635782 8.625378

8 Pit-lake Water 3:39pm 9.620394 8.630167

9 Pit-lake Water 3:45pm 9.630936 8.582735

10 Upstream Water 5:39pm 9.634635 8.519363

11 Midstream water 6:10pm 9.631962 8.624962

12 Downstream water 6:16pm 9.635081 8.635054

Source: Researcher Fieldwork, 2019

Instrumentation, Method of Water Sample Collection and Analysis

The instruments used for the study include: multiparameter water quality meter (Hanna 93103),

water analyzer, Atomic Absorption Spectrometer (AAS) (OMA 300 process analyzer), one liter of

plastic containers, masking tape, marker, writing pad, and Automated Global Positioning System

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


(GPS for taking the coordinates of sampled points). The nitric acid washed-plastic plastic bottles

were flushed with the water prior to collection of the twelve water samples in November, 2019, in

order to reduce contamination. The phases of measurement were: firstly, parameters like EC, TDS,

salinity, pH and temperature (taken at 10am in the morning) were determined and recorded in the

field (i.e. in-situ) using the multiparameter water quality meter (Hanna 93103). Next, nitric acid

(0.2%) was added as a preservative for the collected water samples which were marked and labeled

with the masking tape for the water source, sampling location and date of collection before being

transported to the laboratory for analysis of the other parameters within four (4) days.

Thirdly, dissolved oxygen, salinity and turbidity were determined by water analyzer with the help

of indicator Systronic-371, alkalinity was measured with the water analyzer using Phenolphthalein

indicator. Fourth and finally, nitrate, phosphate, and calcium were measured by the Atomic

Absorption Spectrometer (AAS). Also, the complete randomized block design (CRBD) was

adopted due to the likeness of the experimental points where the surface and groundwater samples

were taken. Similarly, the quality assurance and control of data were performed according to the

specified method (Ishaya et. al., 2013).

RESULTS

Table 2: Physicochemical parameters of surface water

S/N Parameters (units

in mg/l)

Location of Surface Water Tolerance Limits (WHO,

2011; NAFDAC, 2001

IPSW up IPSW mid

IPSW down

IPWW WHO NAFDAC

1 Temp. (0C) 27.0 27.0 27.4 26.9 - 40.00

2 pH 6.59 6.24 5.67 6.18 7.00-9.00 6.50-8.50

3 Salinity (%) 1.28 1.34 0.37 1.24 0.1 0.1

4 TDS 18.6 19.5 12.6 17.3 1000 1000

5 Dissolve Oxygen (DO) 5.69 5.93 5.87 5.51 13-14 13-14

6 EC (μS/cm) 25.0 26.3 76.9 52.8 1000 1000

7 Calcium (Ca) 17.06 5.14 22.93 11.38 75 75

8 Magnesium (Mg3) 4.01 1.68 10.35 5.72 50 -

9 Potassium (K+) 3.74 8.61 6.42 4.13 2.00-3.00 2.00-3.00

10 Turbidity 4.15 4.37 6.06 5.24 5.00 5.00

11 Total Alkalinity 25.30 24.00 36.70 98.20 100.00 100.00

12 Sulphate (SO42) 7.65 13.57 21.64 17.26 250.00 100.00

13 Nitrate (NO3) 2.38 0.59 2.83 2.61 10.00 0.002

14 Chloride (Cl) 18.39 18.31 20.25 19.73 200.00 75.00

15 Phosphate (PO43) 13.79 26.48 32.73 20.51 10.00 10.00 Location: IPSW up = Upstream water, IPSW mid = midstream, IPSW down = downstream, IPWW = wetland water

Source: In-situ and laboratory analysis

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


The result of the surface water samples in Table 2 shows that temperature falls within the

NAFDAC permissible limit of 400C. The pH levels (except for IPSW up) which fell below both the

WHO and NAFDAC tolerable limit indicates an acidic water quality. The salinity is greater than

the WHO and NAFDAC permissible limits of 0.1mg/l. Similarly, the total dissolved solid in the

IPSW up, IPSW mid, IPSW down, and IPWW were 18.6mg/l, 19.5mg/l, 12.6mg/l, and 17.3mg/l which

are far below the permissible limits of 1000mg/l. The values for dissolve oxygen which range

between 5.51-5.93 did not exceed the tolerance limit of 13-14 mg/l. The conductivity level of the

samples had 25.0 μS/cm for upstream, 26.3 μS/cm for midstream, 76.9 μS/cm for downstream,

and 52.8 μS/cm for wetland. These values are far below the WHO and NAFDAC permissible limit

of 1000. Also, the levels of phosphate in Table 2 which exceeds the tolerable limit of 10 mg/l could

result in the wild growth of algal and aquatic plants that will then choke up the water way. The

level of turbidity in the water samples (except for the IPSW up and IPSW mid) were above the WHO

and NAFDAC tolerance limit, this can make disinfection ineffective and dangerous for

microorganisms. The levels of nitrate and potassium in the water samples exceeds the WHO and

NAFDAC tolerance limits for surface water. Lastly, the level of sulphate, calcium, total alkalinity,

magnesium, and chloride also fell within the WHO and NAFDAC permissible or tolerable limits.

Table 3: Mean values the physicochemical parameters of surface water in comparison with

WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limits

S/N Parameters Unit Mean Values

for Surface

Water

Tolerance Limits (WHO,

2011; NAFDAC, 2001 WHO NAFDAC

1 Temperature (Temp.) 0C 27.1 - 40.00

2 pH Ug/m3 6.17 7.00-9.00 6.50-8.50

3 Salinity (%) Ug/m3 1.06 0.1 0.1

4 Total Dissolve Solids

(TDS)

Ug/m3 17 1000 1000

5 Dissolve Oxygen (DO) Ug/m3 5.75 13-14 13-14

6 Electrical Conductivity

(EC)

μS/cm 45.25 1000 1000

7 Calcium (Ca) Ug/m3 14.13 75 75

8 Magnesium (Mg3) Ug/m3 5.44 50 -

9 Potassium (K+) Ug/m3 5.73 2.00-3.00 2.00-3.00

10 Turbidity Ug/m3 5.00 5.00 5.00

11 Total Alkalinity Ug/m3 46.05 100.00 100.00

12 Sulphate (SO42) Ug/m3 15.03 250.00 100.00

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


13 Nitrate (NO3) Ug/m3 2.10 10.00 0.002

14 Chloride (Cl) Ug/m3 19.17 200.00 75.00

15 Phosphate (PO43) Ug/m3 23.38 10.00 10.00

Source: Researcher’s computation, 2019

Table 4: Physicochemical parameters of groundwater

S/N Parameters

(units in mg/l)

Location of Groundwater Tolerance Limits

(WHO, 2011;

NAFDAC, 2001

WW1 WW

2

WW

3

WW4 WW5 PW1 PW2 PW3 WHO NAFDAC

1 Temp. (0C) 26.3 31.6 28.2 28.7 32.4 24.9 30.1 27.6 - 40.00

2 pH 7.37 5.13 6.26 7.15 5.94 4.52 5.36 6.04 7.00-

9.00

6.50-

8.50

3 Salinity (%) 0.66 1.35 0.73 0.61 1.25 1.07 1.83 2.08 0.1 0.1

4 TDS 36.51 121.4 96.2 104.9 251.7 272.6 158.1 69.5 1000 1000

5 Dissolve Oxygen

(DO) 6.13 4.54 5.38 4.69 7.16 5.73 6.28 6.01 13-14 13-14

6 EC (μS/cm) 64.1 58.8 43.5 21.3 17.8 34.9 66.1 87.6 1000 1000

7 Calcium (Ca) 25.31 20.72 23.82 19.38 16.13 27.04 28.46 32.59 75 75

8 Magnesium

(Mg3)

16.82 10.61 9.05 12.36 8.73 15.36 17.46 11.38 50 -

9 Potassium

(K+)

3.03 4.95 3.53 5.38 6.20 12.52 9.39 8.43 5.00 5.00

10 Turbidity 6.04 5.93 5.66 4.62 7.28 8.63 8.49 7.31 5.00 5.00

11 Total

Alkalinity

13.64 17.82 19.56 21.80 22.74 55.26 92.68 86.15 100.00 100.00

12 Sulphate

(SO42)

5.28 5.74 16.05 8.93 7.44 9.25 14.31 10.84 250.00 100.00

13 Nitrate (NO3) 4.17 3.38 1.05 0.52 5.37 10.49 11.02 10.18 10.00 0.002

14 Chloride (Cl) 15.63 14.62 20.74 16.03 12.28 21.17 18.92 9.41 200.00 75.00

0

500

1000

Fre

quen

cy

Physiochemical Parameters of Surface Water

Figure 2: Comparison of mean values of of physiochemical parameters

of surface water vs. WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limit

Mean Values

for Surface

WaterWHO

NAFDAC

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


15 Phosphate

(PO43)

16.52 22.82 15.90 18.26 15.31 27.61 39.04 41.23 10.00 10.00

Location: WW1 = well water sample 1, WW2 = well water sample 2, WW3 = well water sample 3, WW4 = well

water sample 4, WW5 = well water sample 5, PW1 = pit lake water site 1, PW2 = pit lake water site 2, PW3 = pit lake

water site 2.

Source: In-situ and laboratory analysis

The result of the groundwater samples comprising well water (i.e. WW1-WW5) and pit-lake water

(i.e. PW1-PW3) in Table 4 indicate that temperature fell within the NAFDAC permissible limit of

400C. The pH levels (except for WW1 and WW4) which falls below both the WHO and NAFDAC

tolerable limit. The salinity levels is greater than the WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limits of

0.1mg/l. Similarly, the total dissolved solid in all the groundwater samples were far below the

permissible or tolerance limits of 1000mg/l. The values for dissolve oxygen (except for WW2 and

WW4) falls within the range of 5.38-7.16 which is still below the tolerance limit of 13-14 mg/l.

The conductivity level of the samples ranged between 17.8-87.6 μS/cm that is below the WHO

and NAFDAC permissible limit of 1000.

Also Table 4 shows that the potassium levels in the well water samples (except for WW1, WW2,

and WW3) and all the pit-lake water (i.e. PW1-PW3) were above the WHO and NAFDAC

tolerance limits of 5.00 for groundwater. Also, the turbidity level in the groundwater samples

(except for WW4) were above the WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limit. The levels of phosphate

in all the groundwater samples exceeds the WHO and NAFDAC tolerable limit of 10 mg/l. The

nitrate levels of especially the pit-lake water exceeds the WHO tolerance limit of 10 mg/l. Lastly,

the level of sulphate, total alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, and chloride also fell within the WHO

and NAFDAC permissible limits for declaring the water suitable for consumption.

Table 5: Mean values the physicochemical parameters of groundwater in comparison with WHO

and NAFDAC tolerance limits

S/N Parameters Unit Mean values

for well water

Mean values

for pit-lake

water

Tolerance Limits (WHO,

2011; NAFDAC, 2001 WHO NAFDAC

1 Temp. 0C 29.4 27.5 - 40.00

2 pH Ug/m3 6.37 5.31 7.00-9.00 6.50-8.50

3 Salinity Ug/m3 0.92 1.66 0.1 0.1

4 TDS Ug/m3 122.1 166.7 1000 1000

5 DO Ug/m3 5.58 6.01 13-14 13-14

6 EC μS/cm 41.1 62.9 1000 1000

7 Ca Ug/m3 21.07 29.36 75 75

8 Mg3 Ug/m3 11.52 14.73 50 -

9 K+ Ug/m3 4.62 10.11 5.00 5.00

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


10 Turbidity Ug/m3 5.91 8.14 5.00 5.00

11 Total Alkalinity Ug/m3 19.11 78.03 100.00 100.00

12 SO42 Ug/m3 8.69 11.47 250.00 100.00

13 NO3 Ug/m3 2.90 10.56 10.00 0.002

14 Cl Ug/m3 15.86 16.50 200.00 75.00

15 PO43 Ug/m3 17.76 35.96 10.00 10.00 Source: Researcher’s computation, 2019

Discussion of Findings

The result in Tables 2 and 3 revealed that the surface water samples contains levels and mean

values respectively, of parameters like: pH, salinity, phosphate, turbidity, potassium, and nitrate

above the WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limit for surface water. Although, the values for dissolve

oxygen fell below the WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limit of 13-14 mg/l for surface water,

however, DO exceeding 5.0 mg/l is not good for agricultural purposes which is the major

occupation of the people in Amata community. This finding is in agreement with earlier findings

by Envuladu, Chihgle, Banwat, Lar, Yusuf, Audu, Dakhin and Zeakah (2016) that the high

phosphate level in stream and wetland waters could result in the wild growth of algal and aquatic

plants that will then choke up the water way, affect plant growth (via high potassium level), thereby

leading to inadequate filtration and ineffective disinfection that is dangerous to microorganisms

0

500

1000

Fre

quen

cy

Physiochemical paramters of the grondwater (i.e. well water and pit-late

water)

Figure 3: Comparison of the physiochemical parameters of groundwater vs.

WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limit

Mean values for

well water

Mean values for

pit-lake water

WHO

NAFDACIJSER



IJSER © 2020


(due high turbidity level), whilst the high nitrate level poses great threat to both pregnant women

and infants under six months.

The result of the groundwater samples in Tables 4 and 5 indicate that the levels and mean values

respectively, of parameters like temperature, conductivity, sulphate, calcium, magnesium,

alkalinity and chloride fell within the WHO and NAFDAC tolerance or permissible limits for

groundwater suitable for consumption. However, the levels and mean values of pH, salinity,

phosphate, turbidity, potassium, and nitrate levels above the WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limit

for groundwater. Alongside, the level for dissolve oxygen surpassing 5.00 mg/l (but still within

the WHO and NAFDAC tolerance limit of 13-14 mg/l) makes the groundwater samples in Amata

community moderately acidic, salty, muddy, very toxic, and unsuitable for agriculture, drinking,

and other uses. This finding is consistent with Envuladu et al. (2016) who stated that the pH value

lower than 7.0 to 9.0 including DO and turbidity level higher than 5.00 mg/L makes groundwater

which supplies water to streams and wetlands acidic, unfit for agricultural purposes, irrigation,

manufacturing and other uses, thereby, adversely affecting the life of fresh water fish and bottom

dwelling invertebrates. Also, Kumar and Puri (2012) reiterate high level of phosphate and

potassium in groundwater above 10 mg/l and 5.00 mg/L respectively can lead to the wild growth

of algal and aquatic plants which block or obstruct the water way and then affect plant growth.

Whilst Amoo and Akinbode (2007) stated that nitrate level beyond 10 mg/l makes such

groundwater dangerous for pregnant women whose infants are susceptible to blue baby syndrome

(i.e. blood losing its ability to carry sufficient oxygen).

Conclusion

The study concludes that both the organization and artisanal mining of galena in Amata

community, southeastern, Nigeria led to the discharge, seepage, and absorption of chemicals and

noxious waste into the surface water, groundwater, and pit-lake drains around the vicinity. This

made the water quality to be very acidic, salty, muddy, toxic, unclean, and improper or unsafe for

agriculture, certain plant growth, sustenance of specific aquatic organisms, drinking, and other

uses including dangerous to human (especially infants) health and life in such a rural and agrarian

environment. This aligns with Mejia (2015) report that the unregulated, unprofessional, and

artisanal gold mining in Zamfara State in northern Nigeria resulted in high lead concentration of

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


1270mg/l in the local river leading to the poisoning and death of more than 300 persons (mainly

artisans comprising children, youth and women) in 2010.

Hence, it was thus suggested: the adoption of sensible and sustainable environmental regulations

like prior treatment of effluents before their actual discharge into land and water bodies. The design

and execution of regulatory frameworks to accommodate both commercial and artisanal miners.

Steadily building miners capacity towards jettisoning the crude, inefficient, and unethical act of

curbing or stoppage of mining; for properly regulated and professional mining practices that could

reduce the hitherto pollution of the water quality/systems and promote the development of Amata.

Acknowledgement

The effort of Philip Emmanuel in digitizing the map is greatly acknowledged. Also, appreciation

goes to Dr. Clinton Ezekwe for promoting the conduct of this research. Whilst, Uyi Hanson of the

Institute of Pollution Studies (IPS) Rivers State University (RSU) Port Harcourt which provided

the AAS used for the chemical analysis is highly appreciated.

REFERENCES

Ameh, E. G.; Idakwo, S.; Ameh, O. C. & Lekdukum, O. M. (2017). Integrated characterization of

toxicity distribution of selected heavy metals in stream sediments around Itakpe iron ore

mines, North Central Nigeria. Earth Science Research, 6(1), 109-116.

Amoo, I. A. & Akinbode, A. M. (2007). Physiochemical analysis of well water in Minna and its

environs. J. Chem Soc. Nigeria, 32(2), 122-127.

Aroh, K. N.; Ubong, I. U.; Eze, C. L. & Abam, T. K. S. (2006). Trace metal status of streams

receiving acid mine drainage (AMD) from Ishiagu lead/zinc (Pb/Zn) mine, Ebonyi State,

Southeast Nigeria. African Journal of Environmental Pollution and Health, 5(1), 1-8.

Chellan, P. & Sadler, P. J. (2015). The elements of life and medicines. Philosophical transactions.

Series A, Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences, 373(2037), 20140182.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0182

Dami, A.; Ayuba, H. K. & Amukali, O. (2013). Ground water pollution in Okpai and Beneku,

Ndokwa east local government area, Delta State, Nigeria. E3 Journal of Environmental

Research and Management, 4(1), 0171-0179.

Edeani, C. F. (2015). Geochemistry of surface waters in Ishiagu, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. IJISET -

International Journal of Innovative Science, Engineering & Technology, 2(7), 90-95.

Envuladu, R. A.; Chihgle, M. P.; Banwat, M. R.; Lar, I. A.; Yusuf, O. R.; Audu, S.; Dakhin, A. &

Zeakah, A. I. (2016). The quality of drinking water in Jos metropolis, North Central

Nigeria. Jos Journal of Medicine, 6(1), 17-21.

IJSER



IJSER © 2020


Hajeb, P.; Sloth, J. J.; Shakibazadeh, S.; Mahyudin, N. A. & Afsah-Hejri, L. (2014). Toxic

elements in food: Occurrence, binding, and reduction approaches. Comprehensive Reviews

in Food Science and Food Safety, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12068

Ishaya, S.; Mamman, A. M. & Abubakar, O. I. (2018). Effects of barite mining on water quality

in Azara-Awe Local Government Area of Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Ghana Journal of

Geography, 10(2), 36-49.

Kumar, M. & Puri, A. (2012). A review of permissible limits of drinking water. Indian J Occup

Environ Med., 16(1), 40-44.

Lead Fact Sheet (2016). General information and history. Stanford: Stanford University, General

Health and Safety Programme, last accessed July 2016.

Mejia, L. T. (2015). Lead contamination: Environmental geochemistry of gold mining villages in

Northwest Nigeria. Geosciences Thesis, Department of Geosciences, Georgia State

University. Retrievedfromhttp://scholarworks.gus.edu/geosciences_theses.

NAFDAC (National Agency for Food Drugs Administration and Control) (2001). Consumer

Bulletin October-December. Lagos: NAFDAC Publication

Nigerian Geological Survey Agency (NGSA, 2010). Lead-zinc exploration opportunities in

Nigeria.esr.ccsenet.org.

Nuwer, R. (2015). The biosphere: Diversity of life. Aspen Global Change Institute. Basalt, CO.

Retrieved 2015-07-19.

Obarezi, J. E. & Nwosu, J. I. (2013). Structural controls of Pb-Zn mineralization of Enyigba

district, Abakaliki, Southeastern Nigeria. Journal of Geology and Mining Research, 5(11),

250-261.

Oden, M. I. (2012). Barite veins in the Benue Trough: Field characteristics, the quality issue and

some tectonic implications. Environmental. National and Resources, 2(2), 21-32.

Odika, P. O.; Anike, O. L.; Onwuemesi, A. G.; Odika, N. F. & Ejeckam, R. B. (2020). Assessment

of environmental Geochemistry of lead-zinc mining at Ishiagu Area, Lower Benue Trough,

Southeastern Nigeria. Earth Science Research, 9(1), 31-44.

Oelofse, S. & Turton, A. (2008). Mine water pollution - acid mine decant, effluent and treatment:

A consideration of key emerging issues that may Impact the state of the environment.

www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere.

Olubambi, P. A.; Ndlovu, S.; Potgieter, J. H. & Borode, J. O. (2008). Mineralogical

characterization of Ishiagu (Nigeria) complex sulphide ore. International Journal of

Mineral Processing, 87(3-4), 83-89.

IJSER


http://www.agci.org/classroom/biosphere/index.php

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/chemosphere


IJSER © 2020


World Health Organization (WHO, 2011). WHO guidelines for drinking-water quality. 4thed.

WHO Press, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland.

Retrieved from

https://www.unicef.org/cholera/Chapter_4_prevention/01_WHO_Guidelines_for_drinkin

g_water_quality.pdf

Young, C. A.; Taylor, P. R. & Anderson, C. G. (2008). Hydrometallurgy. Proceedings of the Sixth

International Symposium. SME. ISBN 9780873352666.

IJSER


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9780873352666

GALENA MINING AND WATER QUALITY OF AMATA ... - IJSER

Documents

Transcript of GALENA MINING AND WATER QUALITY OF AMATA ... - IJSER